I like many things about this game:

-The team-based nature of the game
-SMART system
-the side objectives, adds depth to the game
-how well done the class system seems to be
-the customization (not that original but still great)
-A body type system on top of the class system
-you get to pick your side in the singleplayer,
-both sides have a valid reason to fight instead of some basic "good guy vs bad guy" crap
-blending of single player and multiplayer,
-Low bullet damage and lack of 1 hit kill weapons
-no sniper class

There are some things I don't like though, like the cartoony art style (just personal taste, not really a problem), but mostly the scale.
I don't buy games with less than 24 players online, but I will probably make and exception for BRINK. If I could change something about this game I would make it have 24 or 32 players online, I would say for 64 player online but that would be unreasonable (with bigger maps and dedicated servers on consoles to support it). Also organized squad systems with squad leaders with special abilities like designating one kind of objective as the current priority (say the enemy has all the command posts, setting command posts as priority targets would tell your squad to focus on getting command posts), and waypoints on the map to tell your squad where to attack from. Things like orders and waypoints should yield exp bonuses to act as incentives. Also, 1 team leader position on each side whose job it is coordinate with squad leaders, and give orders to his entire team, and also has similar abilities as the squad leader, but for his entire team and not just for one squad (waypoints and priority orders from team-leader would override those from a squad leader). With much bigger maps, having to spawn all the way back in base could be annoying, so maybe squad members should be able to spawn on their squad leader (won't be a problem if squads are small and only hold 4 players). Or maybe there could be mobile spawn points, vehicles that act as spawn points like an APC. Maybe some kind of secondary objective may act as spawn points for whatever team captures it, and it could be the squad leader's side-objective (on top of his class-designated side objective).
Just kind of throwing out ideas as I'm typing, but mainly I just wish BRINK had had scale, bigger maps, more players.

The reason I will probably buy this game despite the small scale was that I got burned by another team/objective-based shooter: Killzone3, there were nice additions and improvements, but overall the game got dumbed down from its predecessor to appeal to the casual crowd, there is lots of imbalance, on top of that it got rushed and many problems from the beta still aren't fixed after release (it got released like a week after the beta). I'm going to be on the SOCOM4 multiplayer beta in a bit over a week fron now, I usually don't like third person shooters, but the developers made my favorite tacticial/team/objective-based shooter of all time (MAG), the game will have 32 player online (not 256 player but still awesome), destructible environments, dedicated servers, custom games, clan battles, focus on teamwork, and other good stuff. Its between SOCOM4 and BRINK for me right now (with only 2 options I can't really be so picky), but Brink looks far more innovative, and regular modern-day settings of SOCOM4 look boring... I'm kind of getting off topic.

Is there anything you wish you could change about BRINK? If so, what would you change?

12 on 12 seems a little too large for the setting in which the battles take place. large scale battles would be waaay cramped on the maps that Brink has. I mean. 8 on 8 is a good size. (it IS 8 on 8 right?) Thats bigger than most shooters. plus. having bigger teams on a large map would make the class-based fighting not as pertinent to game play imho.

One thing: Take away the damn rim lightning on enemies, I don't want my enemies nor myself to be people soaked in red radioactive pudding - It's not hard to know who to shoot and who not too :l

I agree with this. I'm hoping that you will have the option to turn it off.

I wouldn't mind lessened importance of classes if it bigger maps and more players led to a greater sense of scale. Classes will always be very important no matter how big the game is. People will still get hurt and need medics, objectives will still need protecting and engineers to set nests to provide that protection, operatives interrogating incapacitated enemies and giving away enemy locations will still be very advantageous, etc. I don't think the Ark is too small to support larger scale combat, just basically put 2 maps together and it should be sufficient.
I understand your point though.

Anyway, what would you change about the game?

Totally agree. The distinct style of the Resistance and the Security makes it pretty easy to tell them apart already IMO.

Not to be another pain, but, there IS a sniper rifle, but ONLY 1. not 2, not 5, 1.

The importance of the classes is one of the key aspects of Brink. I feel lessening their importance for the sake of large scale battles would be devastating to the gameplay as a whole.

How would a larger scale ruin or lessen the importance of classes?

well okay. maybe lessen wasn't the right word xD, but if you had a team of twelve, a balanced team would have 3 medics, 3 soldiers, 3 operatives, and 3 engineers. I think they would be fighting over who completes the objective ect ect. and being an objective based game, would make things aggravating. I mean, I see your point of course. and it COULD work if they added a plethora of different objectives to the match, more than they already do. and you know. That would be fun. Maybe they should try that if they go for a sequel.

So as long as the number of players per class is balanced with the number of objectives for that class then it should be ok.

hahaah i guess that would be a pretty good way to put it.

I really hope you will be able to limit the HUD

The HUD seems way to cramped with things i dont care about.

Here's the lastet up to date image i could find: http://www.ark-island.de/uploads/sections/hud/hud_final2.jpg

I know some of the features displayed on the HUD are subject to change or have already been changed, but if it hasn't it may not change drastically.

Things i would change/eliminate would be:

Remove SMART mode icon
Remove Character class (I obviously know what class I am, i picked it!)
If the 'Command Post' & 'Target Hacking' remain on screen for a long time or are permanent, then Remove/Change those.
Change 'Construction in Progress' & 'Hacking in Progress' time indicator to something less bulky/big


Again, i know probably alot of this you can limit in the settings or that they have already removed them. Im just saying if they havent that's what i would change, because i don't know of anything else that i would change.

Except may the release date to uhh......NOW!

If I were to change one thing about brink, I would change the fact that so many people take a very aggressive stance against certain features they don't THINK they will like, but have never actually played the game.

The only thing I would change would be the release date, BTW Brink at it's FIRST release date please, I've had it pre-ordered for almost 9 months now =(

You don't think the extreme radioactive rim lightning will harm some enjoyment in the game? There is already a health bar for your enemies when you aim at them, if they glow too then they can't hide nor flank you, the same goes to you for them

I hear there's no persistent stat tracking? I would definitely change that. The biggest draw for me in playing an online shooter is to keep getting better at it. Stat tracking is the easiest way to follow my progress. If it's not in game hopefully they'll be some way to track them online similar to the Battlefield stat sites.

If they do have stat tracking, then I hope they don't have KDR, but something like "objective points per time played" or something. I'm sick of people only caring about their KDR in team/objective-based games.

I haven't really seen anything about Brink that I went "Ugh" at. Like someone else said I'd like the release date to be closer but that's about it really. Shave a month off and I'd have nothing to say. I still hope they release a character creator on the site before the game comes out. Just so I can get my look down..

There are many games I had high hopes for but wished they were delayed instead until the devs got everything right. I wouldn't mind it if BRINK was delayed for 4 more months if it meant making sure the game is ready instead of rushing it. Its a blessing to have devs who know when a game needs to be delayed IMO.

I'm with you Shadow.

Oh I agree. I'd rather have the game delayed until it is completely done then get some buggy thing.

This.

It's not a matter of how bad it is, it's a matter of trying to solve a problem which does not exist by making it up in the first place.

The release date.

This, so much.

So sick of people who've barely played it or haven't played it at all replaying to suggestions with "This isn't what Brink is about!"